LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig....
....You hit the nail on the head when you said there's unanimity when it comes to the dangers posed by lead shot.
So the question really isn't whether lead shot can endanger wildlife. Rather, it's whether we've basically solved the lead shot problem with the steps we've already taken....
....Larry. You're wrong, yes I am convincible....
....Take for instance LGF's link, the very fist reference study opens by saying 'lead poisoning in humans is very well known, our understanding about it in wildlife is at a mid 1800's level'.
I've only ever questioned your foregone conclusions. What's the difference between a foregone conclusioner and a denier?....
....What makes you think that you can take a foregone conclusion to the point that you want to and then hit the brakes?
Which "foregone conclusions" would those be, Craig?....
....And one reason that the understanding of the lead poisoning threat isn't at anywhere near the same level in wildlife that it is in humans: We get all excited if we find humans sick or dying from something. We only get excited about wildlife when we a)Really care about the species in question. (For example, if scavengers are ingesting lead from shot but unrecovered wildlife, does anyone really care? Unless, that is, they're eagles!) And b)We have to be aware of what's happening to wildlife. Dead deer lying around are a good bit more obvious than dead quail or doves or woodcock. The only way we know those species are in trouble is if we observe a significant decline in numbers. At which point wildlife biologists do their best to determine what's going on. But birds tend to die in secret, and we don't find a very high percentage of the victims' corpses to do autopsies. Unlike humans.
Isn't everything that follows a foregone conclusion, or pure assumptions if you will? 'We get excited', 'eagles care', 'biologist do their best', 'bird tend to die in secret', possibly, you can see that this is more of an emotional issue to you, than it is to me? I also left in previous quotes to support my thought that you comment here, and in national (world?) publication, about many of these foregone conclusions.
You mention things like the lead shot issue ends at the shore line and the lead shot ban is left alone where there isn't good science to support a ban. How do you reconcile that with LGF saying his science says the entire state of California is going to be subjected to a lead projectile ban? Is his science better than your science, or does the foregone conclusion tell us to follow California? How do you reconcile that with now including scavengers (eating unrecovered wildlife), quail, doves and woodcock? Haven't you shared foregone conclusions about the eating habits of the woodcock and dismissing the finding of high levels of lead in the bones of British estate upland birds, for the purposes of justifying why lead can be use in the uplands? Don't forget, politely decline the soup on your next trip!
I think, if you (meaning anyone) wants to impose policy change and new law, the burden is on them, not me to justify it. The truth is, very little has to be justified beyond feeling like it's justified. We all know lead is a human toxin, don't patronize me about how important humans are. Many bans are done to prioritize other than humans. We all know lead is a human toxin, when are we going to stop commingling the effects of kids eating paint chips with the eating habits of eagles? Question, what would a bird choose, trying to hatch a clutch with possibly thin shells or flying into a wind turbine tomorrow? When will we wake up and recognize that indiscriminate killer that knows no shoreline? Plus, if the feeling moves someone, there're plenty of body count pictures and anecdotes to blow around.
